Richardson Pitches Western Primary

[justy387]

http://www1.abqtrib.com/albq/news/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19855_3585209,00.html
Source: Albuquerque Tribune


Gov. Bill Richardson is planning an aggressive push to persuade Western mountain states to have a presidential primary on a single day early in the nominating process in 2008.

Richardson told the Western Governors' Association today he will make a formal proposal for a Western primary sometime after most legislative sessions end in April and May and before the association's meeting in mid-June in Colorado.

A Western primary could be a boost to Richardson if he decides to run for president, but Richardson said that's not the reason he's pushing the plan.

Montana is a "flyover state" now, he said, with not a single visit from either presidential candidate last year. A primary would force the candidates to talk about Western issues, like energy development, Schweitzer said.

[Placebo]

1. This seems very self-serving on Richardson's part...

he wants to run for president, and he knows he wouldn't beat someone like Hillary or Kerry in Iowa or New Hampshire.

I don't like it.

[mermaid]

2. I Like It From The Standpoint That

The Western states really DON'T get any say in who the nominee is, because, by the time they have their primaries, it's usually already decided.

I like this idea better...How about everyone have their Primaries ALL ON THE SAME DAY...or, if not that...then everyone clamp down and shut up on the results of the Primaries until ALL states have had a chance to have one!!

Why should just a few states have the right to pick our nominees? That's bullspit!

I mean, we coulda had DEAN as the nominee, if it wasn't common knowledge Kerry won the first couple, and so then, all of a sudden, everyone started voting Kerry.

I'd rather everyone vote for who they WANT...rather than who they think is going to win the primary. Kerry got the nomination because people suddenly decided he had the best chance of winning the nomination, after Iowa and New Hampshire...and so a lot of people who might otherwise have voted differently, voted Kerry instead.

This has the effect of denying many people their voice.

If we can have a General Election in one day...with early voting allowed in some places...and that works, then why the hell can't we do the Primaries the same way?

[Warpy]

5. Not only that, but the mountain states are overrepresented with land

and underrepresented with people. Washington really doesn't consider many of the problems out here and seems to think it's all empty scenery, just the way Ansel Adams photographed it.

Yes, Richardson is probably pushing this for his own advantage in the short term, but we'll just have to keep educating the rest of the country on what a DLC/DINO he is and how he shouldn't be on any national ticket (although he'd be a pretty good SOS). In the long term, it would give the mountain west a voice it completely lacks now.

[Brooklyn Michael]

8. The primaries are inbalanced

I agree. As it is now, the weight given to the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries has totally skewed their importance. The media (and sadly, many citizens) have the attention spans of a coked-up gnat. Whichever candidate "seems" to have their act together at the beginning of the primaries is the one who gets crowned the presumptive nominee, discouraging other state's primary voters from registering their own preferences. And once people are "told" that their candidate has no chance to win the nomination, they stop participating. Then we get stuck with a candidate that may not actually represent the choice of ALL the people, and therefore will have a harder time getting elected.

In 2008, for the first time in decades, BOTH parties are going to have to run primaries without a presumptive nominee. No office holders running for re-election (thank God), and no Vice Presidents running for President (unless Gore runs again). We (the entire nation) cannot take our eyes off the ball and let the media and the vocal minorities coronate the nominees simply based on the first two primaries. I say this even for Republicans. If a moderate GOP candidate has the chance to keep pounding away on more centrist positions, the rest of the GOP sheep will be forced to listen. But we know that the extremists in the religious right will try to shout down, smear, and de-rail anyone who's even slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, and do it fast. To them, whoever raises the most money gets the nomination. Loud fear-mongering sews that up pretty quick. To us, it should be more than that. It should be whoever represents the will of the most people (and, hopefully, this will mean they also have the biggest war che$t).

After watching yet another implosion of a Bob Shrum-run candidacy, we HAVE to find a better way. :think:

[hansolsen]

3. I'm in favor of anything that takes power away from Iowa in the Dem

primaries. After what happened to Howard Dean and the way the people of Iowa treated the 5,000 young Dems who showed up to campaign for Dean (slammed the door in their faces), I say Iowa is over. Let's move on.

[Placebo]

6. So...wait...

the main reason for your being against Iowa as the first in the nation caucus is because last time round they didn't choose your candidate of choice? Pretty selfish reasoning.

[hansolsen]

18. It is not who they chose, but how they did it ,that annoys me. The Dean

campaign attracted 5,000 young activists from around the country to take part in their first election by canvassing on the ground in Iowa. Those young kids traveled from every state in the nation to be part of the Iowa caucus process.

But the people of Iowa were rude to them. They slammed the door in the faces of those young people, refusing to hear their story. I for one don't like what happened there, and I will long remember that my neighbors in Iowa were not nice to young kids who drove down from Minnesota and elsewhwere to particiapate in American politics. The welcome they recived was un-American.

[justy387]

12. It wasn't Iowa's fault.

Most people of any state wouldn't like to see 5,000 out-of-state young kids, who are considered by many to be radical-left wingers, tell them who to vote for.
It was Dean's fault for running such a disorganized, lousy campaign, that didn't appeal to mainstream America.

[hansolsen]

17. I disagree. If those safe young people showed up in Minnesota, voters

here would at least extend them the courtesy of inviting them in on a cold January day, offering them a cup of coffee, and listening to what they have to say. Voters can always say no.

The Dean campaign was the best example of pure grass roots politics we have seen in many years, and the people of Iowa chose to spit in the faces of all those young activists. It was a disgrace, IMO.

[woosh]

4. I think this is a great idea

Personally, I'd love to see states like NM, NV, CO and CA have an earlier say in Dem candidates as opposed to a place like Iowa deciding the whole process.

[Alizaryn]

7. He lost any and all support from me forever after his

assistance with preventing a recount this year. I can't see myself ever being able to see past that move.

[b...]

9. should be a 1 day primary decided by popular vote

isn't that obvious?

or am i naively missing something?

[Frances]

10. I used to feel the same way you do

but then I realized that having primary elections over a period of time allowed me to get to know the candidates better.

In the last election, the primaries provided a lot of free publicity for the Dems. If the election had been held at the close of the Dem primaries, Bush would not be sitting in the White House today.

[justy387]

13. I disagree.

I think that having state-by-state primaries are a unique tradition where we see old-fashioned politics of going door-to-door and addressing local people concerns.

States that get would get little national attention like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, have their views heard by politicians. The bigger states, that have enough clout, all vote on the same day (Supper Tuesday).

[ozone_man]

19. There needs to be a balance

It's probably not a good idea to have them all simultaneously, for some of the reasons that you state, though that is the way I feel after witnessing 2004.

But, I don't think we should let a few small conservative states decide the primary. If we're going to stay with spread out primaries, the very least that needs to happen is to balance the front loaded primaries with a few liberal states. Maybe Vermont would balance New Hampshire and Minnesota would balance Iowa. In the West, maybe New Mexico and Colorado, take your pick. I don't know if there are any liberal states in the South, so it maybe better to leave them out of the first round. Call it mini Monday. I don't want to see any more Replublican-lite, loser candidates nominated. Get a real Democrat in there.

[b...]

20. so you'd make smaller states more powerful than larger states?

iowa helped determine john kerry. thank god for iowa?

don't want to do it on one day? fine, break it up by two or three.

small states are way too powerful in determining who gets to move on to big states. i live in NY, and i have never voted in a meaningful primary. why? so vermont gets a say first? that's BS, and not democratic.

one man, one vote.

not one state, another state later, a few less candidates, and another state.

it's painful how they select nominees, and hugely discriminatory against people in my state and most everyone else that has to wait around so we can vote for whichever candidate still has money to run.

it's not determined by who is the best/smartest, but by the wealthiest. who can keep raking in money and put out commercials. they are the candidate. and judging by the results of Nov 2, it was a colossal failure.

i understand small states wanting to have their say. but they have their say at the expense of nearly everyone else. montana has three electoral votes. why? i saw more people on the subway today than there are residents in montana, and they get a whole 3 votes. it seriously doesn't make any sense.

[justy387]

21. You missed the point of my reply.

I think that NY and California have enough prestige and clout, that there needs are met by the government. Smaller states like Iowa and New Hampshire will NEVER get attention by politicians, if they weren't early primary states. It gives politicians with presidential ambitions incentives to look out for the little guy, the small forgotten states.

It seems that everyone wants a scapegoat for the last election. You found the most creative one yet... Iowa :eyes:

[Gloria]

11. Richardson is already running....he's all over the TV here in NM

touting preschool and also delivering a message about how NM can achieve great things.

And, the ads are paid for by the Democratic Committee. So, it looks like Richardson is trying to outrun Dean's efforts here....

[MissMarple]

14. Well, getting out a progressive democratic message in NM is a good thing.

At this point I don't care who it personally benefits, as long as it brings democratic issues and goals into clear focus for the public at large.

[woosh]

15. NM is ripe for the taking.

[TheFarseer]

16. this is and has been ridiculous

Why dont we have the nomination process later in the year say April & May and mandate a policy where states rotate who goes first, 2nd 3rd and so on.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

22. it's better than the current deep-south super tuesday

they kils off progreessive candidacies every four years (and moderates in the GOP).

i like this plan, but of course, i'm a richardson backer, so my judgement may be a bit slanted, i'll admit

[SoCalDem]

23. My primary plan is best:

Regions vote 3 weeks apart.. It gives all candidates an opportunity to advertise in a specific area and campaign stops woould be easy to navigate:)